nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3's IRR Database
From: Martin Millnert <millnert () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:38:13 -0500
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net> wrote:
Just a simple, if route invalidly signed, drop it.
What constitutes a invalidly signed route more exactly? Would a signed route by a signer (ISP) who's status has been revoked by an entity in the RPKI-hierarchy-of-trust above (for whatever reason), be considered invalid? For example, if the Egyptian government orders an entity situated somewhere in the verification trust-chain to revoke the trust-chain for some prefixes below, because it prefers these prefixes to not be reachable by anyone, that wouldn't be very good, would it? Not seeing the upside of that model at all. Why would anyone want that? Cheers, Martin
Current thread:
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database, (continued)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Christopher Morrow (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jared Mauch (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Andree Toonk (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Christopher Morrow (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jack Bates (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jack Bates (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jack Bates (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Martin Millnert (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database ML (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Martin Millnert (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Carlos M. Martinez (Jan 31)